Transfer of amfAR auction funds to Finding Neverland investors

The transfer of $600,000 raised at a 2015 amfAR auction to investors in Harvey Weinstein’s Broadway production of Finding Neverland became a test of how far his influence reached into institutions—and how difficult it could be to scrutinize his dealings. The money was raised for AIDS research, but Weinstein arranged for it to flow to the production’s investors without disclosing that use to the charity. The resulting inquiry revealed both alarm inside amfAR and efforts to restrict the investigation.

The transaction and its stakes

Finding Neverland was struggling to get off the ground when Weinstein arranged for the proceeds of the 2015 amfAR auction to go to the show’s investors. The $600,000 had been raised through a high-profile charity auction associated with amfAR’s glamorous Cannes fund-raisers, which Weinstein had helped stage. The transfer was not disclosed to the charity. Some amfAR leaders felt duped and worried that something illegal might have happened; the concern was not simply that money had moved, but that funds raised for AIDS research had been redirected to reimburse Weinstein’s own investors.

An investigation met with resistance

Tom Ajamie, a lawyer hired by amfAR’s board to examine the transaction, told Megan Twohey that investigating Weinstein had been unlike anything he had experienced. Weinstein obstructed the review at every turn, while David Boies used nondisclosure agreements to silence board members. Ajamie’s inquiries also led him to hear allegations of sexual harassment and abuse involving Weinstein, bringing the financial investigation into contact with the broader pattern Twohey and Jodi Kantor were reporting.

Ajamie’s concern about those allegations extended beyond the immediate review. In October 2016, he raised them with Lisa Bloom over drinks in Los Angeles. He had been impressed by Bloom’s feminist credentials and wondered whether she might challenge Weinstein as she had challenged other powerful men, or whether she was already representing some of Weinstein’s victims. His question pointed to a growing contradiction: people investigating Weinstein could encounter reports of misconduct even while trying to establish the facts of a separate financial matter.

The reporting takes shape

Twohey spent two weeks piecing together the route by which the auction proceeds had reached Finding Neverland’s investors. She confirmed that the New York State Office of the Attorney General was investigating and obtained internal records showing serious concern within amfAR. The charity’s chief financial officer had written, “Nothing about this deal feels right to me.” Legal experts told Twohey that the arrangement might amount to fraud. The reporting did not establish that Weinstein had broken the law, but it raised the possibility that more than half a million dollars intended for AIDS research had been used to reimburse his investors.

Twohey viewed the transaction as evidence of Weinstein’s ability to bend an institution to his will. Weinstein had cultivated a close relationship with amfAR over the years, helping with its star-studded Cannes fund-raiser; Boies had also helped silence the board when it sought an outside investigation. In an interview with Twohey, Boies spent nearly two hours deflecting questions, supported by Lanny Davis and Charlie Prince, a Weinstein Company attorney. Their response presented the transaction as unremarkable even as the charity’s records and concerns suggested otherwise.

The confrontation at The New York Times

The dispute came into sharper focus on September 19, when Weinstein arrived at the fourth floor of The New York Times Building to confront Twohey and try to stop the story. Twohey’s editors, including Rebecca Corbett and Dean Baquet, had approved the meeting on two conditions: it would be on the record, and it would deal only with the financial transaction, not allegations about Weinstein’s treatment of women. Corbett joined to keep the interview on track. Twohey wanted both answers about the money and a firsthand sense of the man she and Kantor had been investigating for months.

The financial story risked becoming a distraction from the investigation into Weinstein’s treatment of women, a concern Kantor and the editors had raised. Yet the transaction offered a distinct account of institutional power: charity leaders had questioned the deal, an outside investigation had faced obstruction, and board members had been constrained by nondisclosure agreements. Its importance lay not only in the fate of the auction money but in the machinery that could impede scrutiny of Weinstein’s conduct and business dealings.